Property, Flats and The Impact of RERA After 2016

Property, Flats and The Impact of RERA After 2016 

In case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2017] GCtR 6261 (Bombay) the law related to properties was explained.  It was held that the promoter is liable to pay interest on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 or for any other reason. it cannot be said that Section 18(1)(b) is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. It also cannot be said to be a penal provision. Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is compensatory in nature and not penal. It is not unreasonable to require the promoter to pay interest to the allottees whose money it is when the project is delayed beyond the contractual agreed period.

Property & A Case : A Recent View of Supreme Court of Feb 2023

 

A Case For Property : A Recent View of Supreme Court of Feb 2023

There have been many interesting decisions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023.

Let us go through the recent case citation [2023] GCtR 536 (SC) where the relatives of the property seller lost the litigation.

A case related to property was filed. The person who sold the property had died. The death of seller of property occurred after the property sale transaction. The seller's relatives initiated litigation regarding the property. The buyer became the opposite party. The relatives of the seller of property had, in the litigation, questioned the rights of the property buyer. 

It was ultimately found that the property sale transaction was valid and the litigation initiated by the relatives of the seller of the property was found not to have substance. 

What [2023] GCtR 536 (SC) indicates is that in certain situations related to property litigation, there may be no need to issue notice to the opposite party and the case can be dismissed without notice to the opposite party. 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 14 July 2020.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.  

 

Property Buyers and Compensation : A Legal Issue

 Property Buyers and Compensation : A Legal Issue 

Many cases have been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 

It has been commented at page 9 and 10 of Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh [2004] GCtR 2720 (SC) thus : - 

"The power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum." 

"The Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause."

"That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher."

"Compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer".

 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 17 March 2004.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. 

"Fraudulent Will" : HC Denies Relief to Party

"Fraudulent Will" : HC Denies Relief to Party

Many cases have been decided by Hon'ble High Courts in India. 

In the case citation [2017] GCtR 2703,  a party had initiated litigation on the strength of a will in respect of a property. While referring the law regarding succession viz. Indian Succession Act, 1925, the principles regarding will in respect of properties was outlined. 

The date on which the will was made was looked at. The documents produced by the opposite party were marked as exhibit and which, too, casted its effect in this litigation related to will. The plaintiff was cross- examined. 

[2017] GCtR 2703 is important because it explains which document is required to be produced during litigation where a will is to be utilised. When certain things are not proved and that is combined with the steps taken by opposite party, [2017] GCtR 2703 also gives important lesson on burden of proof in litigations associated with will. 

Ultimately, the will was found fraudulent in [2017] GCtR 2703. 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.